Fair enough, but all I see there is basically something saying "they have to be tested. And they can't have any naughty pointy bits." Ok, so I paraphrased.
I guess I'm looking for something that can be compared. Scientifically. That is, what is the minimum that EN1836:1997 allows.
They are paying for something they like, they are not paying for "optically correct"ness, they are paying for a luxury good.
Actually, that is part of what I paid for. And I would challenge anyone (and have) to try a pair of polarized Oakleys and then their drugstore pair. There is an amazing difference.
Believe me, I am not one to believe that "money = quality". But I also refuse to accept the counterculture view that "money = luxurious waste".
Belief that Oakleys have godlike powers is crazy, but they are very VERY advanced eyewear. I wonder how many of the people crapping on them today have tried a pair in the last few years?
Ther are safety standards. As long as these glasses have been verified as complying with these standards, I don't care if they are mass produced and cost £2.99
Yes, there are safety standards. My Oakleys have been tested. How much testing do you think they did on the £2.99 pair? But that said, price isn't the issue.
Paying $400 for "optically correct" glasses is quite a joke.
No, it isn't. No more so that people who pay thousands of dollars putting together an insane gaming rig, with a $500 video card inside. If somebody buys something they like or appreciate, who is to say "it's a joke"?
I don't think that the word "Oakley" is worth multipying that figure by 100.
Nor do I.
I do, however, feel that the health of my eyes is. If your eyesight is worth no more than £2.99, bully for you. I prefer something that's made with a bit of quality and is optically correct.
These are a bit more than a normal pair of Oakleys. I have a pair of matte black polarized Oakleys, very understated, and I paid maybe $210 for them. Best eyewear I've ever owned, quality-wise. Some other styles do come near the $300 mark, I believe.
That being said, I'd still prefer to just have a pair of sunglasses and my Rio Nitrus. I don't see the need for this combination, at least not until the get it a bit more compact.
I find it ironic that people on Slashdot are bashing this. Maybe it isn't geeky enough.
Re:Magnusson Moss Warranty Act
on
Hack Your Car
·
· Score: 1
You might want to look a little deeper for info on the Skyline. I would bet you're looking at Motor X's website for the pricing, though I could be wrong.
If so, please remember that their price reflects some fairly bloated federalization fees. You know, for things like putting new tire information labels on. In english. Ok, they would have had to crash test a few too.
The Skyline is not all that expensive in Japan. You can get a '95 there for less than $7K. Granted, the fact that the shaken fees for a powerful car like the Skyline can make them used-lot/export bait pretty quickly.
Sure it's illegal, but so have many things Microsoft has done.
I'm not sure that kind of justification really works. It also doesn't help the open source community, IMHO. I can't agree with the "let's sink to their level" philosophy.
This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.
Being that Maya Complete is THOUSANDS less than any non-academic version of 3D Studio MAX, and about the same as the academic version, what made you choose 3dsmax?
Is it the fact that 3dsmax is one of the most widely pirated 3D applications, and therefore more available (and cheaper)?
The personal learning edition is intended for kids who want to make models for Quake and Half-Life. Anyone who will consider buying it only needs about 20 minutes to decide, to kick the tires and look under the hood.
And yeah, I posted this anonymously for a reason.:)
Yeah? Well I'M not afraid! I like porn! =^)
I hear it's always spoken well of me, as well...
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 1
and frankly a lot of those films are really dull and have no business being in the list at all.
So would you care to share which of those films you found dull? And are you sure you aren't just confusing "dull" with "didn't get it"?
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But most movies today are built wholly around the FX and CGI, so what are we supposed to talk about when those suck?
Perhaps you should stop watching crappy movies that are built around FX and CGI then?
Seriously. Go to IMDB and take a look. Plenty of the top 250 have NO CGI. And just because a movie is there doesn't mean you have to go watch it. Unless you feel like spending $8.50 to have something to complain about.
perhaps a way to computer generate decent plot lines is the next step in movie evolution.
No, I think the next step is to develop movie-goers who are smart enough to be offended by crappy stories. Offended enough to stop feeding the studios cash for movies like "The Santa Clause 2".
Re:You know... things just don't amaze me.
on
Message in a Battle
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Really the biggest eyesore is CG people. I have yet to see something that really amazes me as it looks like a real person. To be honest, I found the closest being FF:Spirits Within. Crappy movie, but you have to admit the graphics were outstanding.
I'm assuming you're talking about the way CG people move, which is (sadly) not very often convincing. And though I agree that the characters in FF:TSW were completely believeable, they were also....
wait for it...
...ANIMATED THROUGH MOTION CAPTURE.
Compared to Weta's Massive, which animates everything on the fly (ok, granted, using motion capture clips which the animation team tweaked), FF:TSW technique is stone age. So give them a bit of credit for at least trying to further the art....
Why is it that people can't just sit down and enjoy a movie anymore? All we hear is "I could tell the trucks on the highway in the Matrix weren't real" and "Boy, I'm sure not impressed by those 250,000 orcs attacking. It's clearly not real."
Watch the movie. Talk about the story. Appreciate the effort that went into trying to entertain your nit-picking self.
Actually, no. There are, I'm sure, any number of good tools available on the Windows platform.
I'm not a member of the "Linux does everything better than Windows" camp, either. I gave up on the "which is better" war quite a while ago. I use IRIX at home, which makes me NO AUTHORITY on linux.
The simple fact is that, for the Playstation, linux is the development OS of choice. Since the PS2 is a proprietary system, it makes sense to put the prefered OS on the target hardware.
If someone puts Windows on the PS2, more power to them. But I really can't see that happening any time soon.
...is that this is NOT about the cool things you can do with linux. It's about a tool for people who are interested in learning how to develop games for console systems.
I agree, if you just like playing games on your PS2 and working with linux in general, then the PS2 linux kit is a HUGE waste of money.
HOWEVER: For the people out there who would like to someday make a living actually developing games for the PS2, it's a VERY inexpensive way to come really close to Sony's actual Playstation DevKit (last time I looked, the prices for a DTL-10K from Sony was WAAAYYYY more than the price of the linux kit.)
Remember, it's just a matter of the right tool for the job. If you're coding for AMD, use an AMD system. If you're coding for the PS2.....
Slashdot Mirror
...I've always been able to boot into BSoD on Window? How is this news?
..until Rutan does this?
Fair enough, but all I see there is basically something saying "they have to be tested. And they can't have any naughty pointy bits." Ok, so I paraphrased.
I guess I'm looking for something that can be compared. Scientifically. That is, what is the minimum that EN1836:1997 allows.
They are paying for something they like, they are not paying for "optically correct"ness, they are paying for a luxury good.
Actually, that is part of what I paid for. And I would challenge anyone (and have) to try a pair of polarized Oakleys and then their drugstore pair. There is an amazing difference.
Believe me, I am not one to believe that "money = quality". But I also refuse to accept the counterculture view that "money = luxurious waste".
Belief that Oakleys have godlike powers is crazy, but they are very VERY advanced eyewear. I wonder how many of the people crapping on them today have tried a pair in the last few years?
I think anyone would understand that a word isn't able to stop UV rays.
br>Here's some reading on the tests Oakley does on their eyewear:
http://oakley.com/technology/impact_protection/
http://oakley.com/technology/lens_clarity/
You can read more on their site.
Care to post the standards the EU requires on their £2.99 pairs?
By the way, could you please point out which pair of Oakleys cost (£2.99 + £295 =) £297.99 or $537.75? I couldn't find them...
Ther are safety standards. As long as these glasses have been verified as complying with these standards, I don't care if they are mass produced and cost £2.99
Yes, there are safety standards. My Oakleys have been tested. How much testing do you think they did on the £2.99 pair? But that said, price isn't the issue.
Paying $400 for "optically correct" glasses is quite a joke.
No, it isn't. No more so that people who pay thousands of dollars putting together an insane gaming rig, with a $500 video card inside. If somebody buys something they like or appreciate, who is to say "it's a joke"?
I don't think that the word "Oakley" is worth multipying that figure by 100.
Nor do I.
I do, however, feel that the health of my eyes is. If your eyesight is worth no more than £2.99, bully for you. I prefer something that's made with a bit of quality and is optically correct.
You're right, to an extent.
These are a bit more than a normal pair of Oakleys. I have a pair of matte black polarized Oakleys, very understated, and I paid maybe $210 for them. Best eyewear I've ever owned, quality-wise. Some other styles do come near the $300 mark, I believe.
That being said, I'd still prefer to just have a pair of sunglasses and my Rio Nitrus. I don't see the need for this combination, at least not until the get it a bit more compact.
I find it ironic that people on Slashdot are bashing this. Maybe it isn't geeky enough.
You might want to look a little deeper for info on the Skyline. I would bet you're looking at Motor X's website for the pricing, though I could be wrong.
If so, please remember that their price reflects some fairly bloated federalization fees. You know, for things like putting new tire information labels on. In english. Ok, they would have had to crash test a few too.
The Skyline is not all that expensive in Japan. You can get a '95 there for less than $7K. Granted, the fact that the shaken fees for a powerful car like the Skyline can make them used-lot/export bait pretty quickly.
Sure it's illegal, but so have many things Microsoft has done.
I'm not sure that kind of justification really works. It also doesn't help the open source community, IMHO. I can't agree with the "let's sink to their level" philosophy.
This actually steered me away from Maya, so I ended up sticking with 3dsmax for my uni subjects.
Being that Maya Complete is THOUSANDS less than any non-academic version of 3D Studio MAX, and about the same as the academic version, what made you choose 3dsmax?
Is it the fact that 3dsmax is one of the most widely pirated 3D applications, and therefore more available (and cheaper)?
The personal learning edition is intended for kids who want to make models for Quake and Half-Life. Anyone who will consider buying it only needs about 20 minutes to decide, to kick the tires and look under the hood.
And yeah, I posted this anonymously for a reason. :)
Yeah? Well I'M not afraid! I like porn! =^)
I hear it's always spoken well of me, as well...
and frankly a lot of those films are really dull and have no business being in the list at all.
So would you care to share which of those films you found dull? And are you sure you aren't just confusing "dull" with "didn't get it"?
But most movies today are built wholly around the FX and CGI, so what are we supposed to talk about when those suck?
Perhaps you should stop watching crappy movies that are built around FX and CGI then?
Seriously. Go to IMDB and take a look. Plenty of the top 250 have NO CGI. And just because a movie is there doesn't mean you have to go watch it. Unless you feel like spending $8.50 to have something to complain about.
perhaps a way to computer generate decent plot lines is the next step in movie evolution.
No, I think the next step is to develop movie-goers who are smart enough to be offended by crappy stories. Offended enough to stop feeding the studios cash for movies like "The Santa Clause 2".
Really the biggest eyesore is CG people. I have yet to see something that really amazes me as it looks like a real person. To be honest, I found the closest being FF:Spirits Within. Crappy movie, but you have to admit the graphics were outstanding.
...ANIMATED THROUGH MOTION CAPTURE.
I'm assuming you're talking about the way CG people move, which is (sadly) not very often convincing. And though I agree that the characters in FF:TSW were completely believeable, they were also....
wait for it...
Compared to Weta's Massive, which animates everything on the fly (ok, granted, using motion capture clips which the animation team tweaked), FF:TSW technique is stone age. So give them a bit of credit for at least trying to further the art....
Why is it that people can't just sit down and enjoy a movie anymore? All we hear is "I could tell the trucks on the highway in the Matrix weren't real" and "Boy, I'm sure not impressed by those 250,000 orcs attacking. It's clearly not real."
Watch the movie. Talk about the story. Appreciate the effort that went into trying to entertain your nit-picking self.
Actually, no. There are, I'm sure, any number of good tools available on the Windows platform.
I'm not a member of the "Linux does everything better than Windows" camp, either. I gave up on the "which is better" war quite a while ago. I use IRIX at home, which makes me NO AUTHORITY on linux.
The simple fact is that, for the Playstation, linux is the development OS of choice. Since the PS2 is a proprietary system, it makes sense to put the prefered OS on the target hardware.
If someone puts Windows on the PS2, more power to them. But I really can't see that happening any time soon.
...is that this is NOT about the cool things you can do with linux. It's about a tool for people who are interested in learning how to develop games for console systems.
I agree, if you just like playing games on your PS2 and working with linux in general, then the PS2 linux kit is a HUGE waste of money.
HOWEVER: For the people out there who would like to someday make a living actually developing games for the PS2, it's a VERY inexpensive way to come really close to Sony's actual Playstation DevKit (last time I looked, the prices for a DTL-10K from Sony was WAAAYYYY more than the price of the linux kit.)
Remember, it's just a matter of the right tool for the job. If you're coding for AMD, use an AMD system. If you're coding for the PS2.....